Sentences with phrase «estimates of the sensitivity of»

Previously, estimates of the sensitivity of global temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide ranged from 1.5 °C to 5 °C.

«My view on this is that the research needs to broaden out to have more of a focus on variability more generally so that a) we can predict the next few years better b) we can refine our estimates of the sensitivity of the climate system to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.»

I'm increasingly thinking that what we really need is an estimate of the sensitivity of the system to an injection of carbon dioxide including the feedback from the carbon cycle etc..

So my question is: are there any other papers I should look at for a realistic estimate of the sensitivity of global temperature to the solar cycle?

Not exact matches

This year's budget provides a sensitivity analysis for yields on 10 - year bonds; should interest rates fall in line with the BMO projections, the Ontario government will see estimated gains of $ 400 million next year alone.

The Interest Rate Sensitivity illustrator estimates the potential impact of interest rate changes on both the value of your individual fixed income positions and your overall portfolio.

Since changes in interest rates impact bond funds differently than bonds and CDs, estimates of price sensitivity may be less accurate the larger the shift in interest rates.

The current estimate according to 133.org is that one in 133 Americans have celiac and another 18 million have some form of non-Celiac gluten sensitivity.

There's not yet a definitive test for gluten sensitivity, making accurate estimates of its prevalence difficult.

people with non-coeliac gluten sensitivity, which is estimated to affect 5 - 10 per cent of the population.

95 % UI = uncertainty interval around the cost and DALY estimates, derived from multivariate sensitivity analysis propagating uncertainty around cost inputs, elasticity estimates, relative risks of disease outcomes and the prevalence of alcohol consumption.

Even though only an estimated 1 % of Americans have tested positive to have Celiac disease, there are many people who notice they have gluten sensitivity.

If you check out the study, you will see that the results of the sensitivity analysis did move some estimates that favored water birth to the null — which means that there was no difference between water birth and conventional delivery.

We also used multiple imputation to evaluate the sensitivity of the estimates obtained from the complete case analysis.

In a sensitivity analysis, inclusion in the meta - analysis of the assumed zero estimates from the five studies (table 1) with no published mean differences attenuated the overall summary estimate for systolic blood pressure (mean difference: — 1.0 mmHg, 95 percent CI: — 1.6; — 0.4; p = 0.002), but there was still strong evidence of an inverse association.

Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues looked at why different models give different estimates of sensitivity.

The authors found that current conservation prioritizations do not correspond to their projected estimates of climate sensitivities.

To estimate how much the sensitivity varies, Gary Russell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and colleagues ran a climate model repeatedly.

It tries to turn a major factor in the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates — the behavior of clouds — into a strength.

This was a small, exploratory study, and was not designed to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the imaging method.

On previous estimates of the climate sensitivity, that is far too late.

This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates, meaning that global average temperatures will increase by 3 °C to 5 °C with a doubling of carbon dioxide.»

When Otto calculated the climate sensitivity from his data, he found it was about 2 °C — with a range of 0.9 to 5 °C — well below the IPCC's best estimate of 3 °C.

By studying the relationship between CO2 levels and climate change during a warmer period in Earth's history, the scientists have been able to estimate how the climate will respond to increasing levels of carbon dioxide, a parameter known as «climate sensitivity».

«Our estimates of climate sensitivity lie well within the range of 1.5 to 4.5 ºC increase per CO2 doubling summarised in the latest IPCC report.

The IPCC wishes to destroy the world economy and starve the world of energy and food at a cost of $ 76 trillion over the next 40 year's (UN estimate), to keep global temps below 2C, when even their wildly pessimistic and disconfirmed projections (formally known as predictions) now suggest that climate sensitivity could be as low as 1.5 C, without spending a dime.

Well while they are «dialing back» their estimate of «Climate Sensitivity», that legacy of presumably the late Dr Stephen Schneider, they might also consider the claim that: -

In the figure in this article below, 10 out of 17 recent climate sensitivity estimates are 2C or lower (3 IPCC estimates counted as 1): http://www.cato.org/blog/current-wisdom-even-more-low-climate-sensitivity-estimates

We show how the maintained consensus about the quantitative estimate of a central scientific concept in the anthropogenic climate - change field — namely, climate sensitivity — operates as an «anchoring device» in «science for policy».

Olson, R., et al. «What is the effect of unresolved internal climate variability on climate sensitivity estimates?.»

Dr. Benestad states: «They take the ratios of the amplitude of band - passed filtered global temperatures to similarly band - passed filtered solar signal as the estimate for the «climate sensitivity».

They take the ratios of the amplitude of band - passed filtered global temperatures to similarly band - passed filtered solar signal as the estimate for the «climate sensitivity».

That study addressed a puzzle, namely that recent studies using the observed changes in Earth's surface temperature suggested climate sensitivity is likely towards the lower end of the estimated range.

The NGN article itself gives a good explanation of climate sensitivity and the various studies and estimates of it, and does quote Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois saying that Hegerl's result «means climate sensitivity is larger than we thought for 30 years, so the problem is worse than we thought.

Therefore studies based on observed warming have underestimated climate sensitivity as they did not account for the greater response to aerosol forcing, and multiple lines of evidence are now consistent in showing that climate sensitivity is in fact very unlikely to be at the low end of the range in recent estimates.

From at least Lorius et al (1991)-- when we first had reasonable estimates of the greenhouse gases from the ice cores, to an upcoming paper by Schneider von Deimling et al, where they test a multi-model ensemble (1000 members) against LGM data to conclude that models with sensitivities greater than about 4.3 ºC can't match the data.

About our estimates of the climate transfer sensitivity to solar variations at 11 years and 22 years, Dr. Benestad makes again a great confusion by misquoting and misunderstanding our paper.

He attacked mainstream estimates of climate sensitivity by a misapplication of the Stefan - Bolzmann equation.

They used some crude estimates of «climate sensitivity» and estimates of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) to calculate temperature signal (in form of anomalies).

Almost 30 years ago, Jule Charney made the first modern estimate of the range of climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2.

And that is why they don't report that «climate sensitivity is probably in the middle of previous predictions» and do report «Climate sensitivity may be twice scientists» previous estimate.»

In your sixth last line, you've put the Annan and Hargreaves (A&H) estimate of the lower bound of the 95 % confidence limits for climate sensitivity at 1.9 ºC.

Where (equilibrium / effective) climate sensitivity (S) is the only parameter being estimated, and the estimation method works directly from the observed variables (e.g., by regression, as in Forster and Gregory, 2006, or mean estimation, as in Gregory et al, 2002) over the instrumental period, then the JP for S will be almost of the form 1 / S ^ 2.

There are, incidentally, other scientific problems with the paper: notably that the model used was only suitable for small perturbations but the results are for rather large perturbations; and that the estimate of CO2 sensitivity was too low by a factor of about 3.

In international assessments of the climate issue, the consensus - estimate of 1.5 degrees C to 4.5 degrees C for climate sensitivity has remained unchanged for two decades.

If you want to estimate climate sensitivity to doubling CO2, don't you need to estimate as precisely as possible the direct and indirect effects of each forcing on temperature trends?

My only point on the paper was that the estimates of climate sensitivity therein had been relied upon in the Stern discussion papers.

Your answer so far is that his estimate of the observed sensitivity ignores time delays.

The calculations of prospective warming in the OXONIA lecture and the accompanying discussion papers are based on the new climate sensitivity estimates by Murphy et al which were published in Nature, 12 August 2004, vol.

In estimating climate sensitivity such effects must be controlled for, and subtracted out to yield the portion of climate change attributable to CO2.